Bob Costas laments the fact that he broke his own rule about not commenting on nuanced topics unless there’s enough time to “flesh them out.” Sadly, given more time to discuss his thoughts on gun control, he is still wrong.
“Here’s where I stand: I do not want to see the Second Amendment repealed. … People should be allowed to own guns for their own protection. Obviously, those who are hunters. … Access to guns is too easy in some cases. I don’t see any reason a citizen should be able to arm himself in some states in ways only police or military should — to have a virtual militia [by] mail order or gun shows. Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What possible use is there? … Whitlock wrote about a gun culture. That’s what I was focusing on.”
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Bob doesn’t think we need any pesky militias, but that would seem to be the very intent of the authors of the Second Amendment. A wise person once wrote, “Whether or not the ‘framers of the Constitution’ envisioned semi-automatic weapons has no bearing on the advisability of the current legislation. Rep. Kohl-Wells should re-read the 2nd Amendment and try to understand the thinking behind it. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t written to protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen; it was written to protect the ‘the security of a free state.’ Consequently, it should be assumed that the author envisioned citizens as being well armed according to the standard of the day.”
Sorry, Bob…keep spinning.
Cross-posted at It’s Only Words